Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kingdom of Mysore

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Kingdom of Mysore[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it covers an important period in the history of Southern India. The article describes South India in the wake of the decline of its last great Hindu Empire in 1565, the struggle for independence from British rule by an offshoot Kingdom, the influence of English language and British governance on local customs and administration, the development of classical Carnatic music, Kannada literature, Kannada drama and stage, Mysore paintings and Indo-European architecture before and during the British Raj. The article is well referenced and has been through several rounds of copy edits. The automated peer review requirements have been addressed. Please provide constructive feedback on the content, its style and presentation. Thanks. Dineshkannambadi 23:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I haven't reviewed the entire article yet, but this looks like another excellent article, Mr. Kannambadi. Great work, man! I'll offer my full evaluation later on. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply I am looking forward to your comments. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only a few people would know who Menuhin is if he isn't explained. And in the context of the article, Menuhin isn't important. Blnguyen (two years of monkeying) 06:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - Great work again. I don't think the Menuhin thing in the caption should be there though. Blnguyen (two years of monkeying) 06:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply Done. Removed the image caption about Menuhin. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 12:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by John Broughton
  • JB There are seven or so main sections, none of which have subsections. They should - that helps the reader skim the article, looking for interesting parts.
DK Reply Actually there are 4 main sections - History, Administration, Economy and Culture. Under Culture, I have 5 subsections called Religion, Society, Literature, Music, Architecture. This is consistent with the other eight Karnataka history related FA's. The only newly introduced subsection is on Music, in place of "Language".Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JB Also, there is no introductory paragraph to the main "Culture" section; a brief overview would be nice (a paragraph or so). Interestingly, such a paragraph appears at the end of the lead section; perhaps you could shorten that slightly, and add a longer version at the beginning of the "Culture" section?

DK Reply This format is consistent with other FA's as I mentioned. But I will look into this suggestion and figure out how best to create an introduction.Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JB Third, I question the value of the daughter articles Society of the Kingdom of Mysore; it's not much longer than the "Society" section of the main article, so I suggest that you fold it back in (with subsections).

DK Reply I accept that the subsection on Society may be almost as long as the daughter article for the same topic. By rolling back the daughter articles for Society, Administration, Economy into the main article, I would blow up the main article size to over 65K which is where I started from and am trying to avoid. Then there are daughter articles for Literature of the Kingdom of Mysore and Musicians of the Kingdom of Mysore that are truly big and greater than 25 Kbytes. So the best thing perhaps is to further shorten the sections/subsections Society, Administration, Economy as you suggest in the next point to about 3 paragraphs each. This way I maintain justification for creating sub-articles for the sections/subsections and dont blow up the overall article size.Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JB Finally, the convention when you have daughter articles (per WP:SS) is that you use the {{main}} template rather than the {{see also}} template, and that the parent article have only a summary (say, three paragrahs at most), rather than massive duplication between the two articles (a horror to keep both current, and synchronized).

DK Reply I agree and will change the "See also" to "Main". I can reduce the existing sections, subsections to justify the need for sub-articles for the same topics.Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JB (Great work, by the way; I just think that a FA article has to aim at getting everything right.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Thanks for your suggestions. However, Before I start working on your suggestions, I would like to wait for comments from a few more reviewers just to see if they concur. I would not want to start a major rehaul of the sections/subsections and hold up reviews from other users. Thank you again.Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply I will look into your recommendations tonight carefully. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JB I looked again at the long sections/subsections. I think the issue is what's good for the reader, not what prior FAs did or didn't do. Having said that, I note that the current main page article, England national rugby union team, has one lengthy section. And looking through various guidelines, I can't find anything that says (for example) that when a section has eight or long paragraphs, or more than X words, or whatever, then it's recommended to add subsections. (I also looked through the long sections to see if I could split one myself, as a demonstration, and admit that I didn't see any that would easily split; sections that are chronological are usually the easiest.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply Thanks for your effort. I can try to reduce to some extent those sections/subsections that already have sub-articles. I am just concerned another reviewer may find it too skimpy and object to that. What is good for one reviewer may not be for another. But I appreciate your effort to promote this article for the better.Dineshkannambadi 14:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support—A great read. Some minor issues:

  • "South India", "southern India", and "south India": pick one.
  • Same thing with "Kingdom"/"kingdom" (by itself).
  • Some dash/hyphen inconsistencies (see WP:DASH). I took care of some.
Thanks. Saravask 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dk Reply Thanks. I will look into this inconsistency.Dineshkannambadi 22:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dk Reply Done.Dineshkannambadi 01:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this is one of the best history related article and i think it must be given the FA status. Amartyabag TALK2ME 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment History section is a little too long. Can it be broken into sub sections for ease of reading? Administration section too could be broken up into sub sections or summarised. Architecture section could be a top-level section instead of being under culture given its length and coverage. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply The history covers about 550 years of the Mysore Kingdom. Hence it may appear a bit bulky. Making it any shorter would mean removing pertinent details which would hurt continuity. I have explained only about four important kings and just barely mentioned the others. The "Administration" section can be further shortened as it already has a sub-article. I will look into this. The "Architecture" subsection has been under Culture section in all the Karnataka FA's so far, so I have maintained the same format. thanksDineshkannambadi 12:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sundar I agree with you on why the history section is long. It's comprehensive. I didn't want it to be shortened, just split up into subsections. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply Please clarify how you want it broken into subsections. I have not done this for the FA's and this may break the format. Do you want seperate subsections for native rule vs foreign rule? Or do you prefer pre-1760 (pre Haider-Tipu-British) and post 1760 (Haider-Tipu-British) history subsections.Dineshkannambadi 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sundar reply I'm not an expert in the history of Mysore. But, if there are well-known or at least discrete eras as in Chola dynasty, we can split the section based on them. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply I have reduced the "Administration section" somewhat.Dineshkannambadi 15:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sundar reply Thanks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply I have made "architecture" into a new section. The only reasonable split I can imagine in the "History" section is "pre-British" and "anglo-mysore conflict". There are no seperate dynasties here unlike in Chola case.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply Done. Split History into two subsections.Dineshkannambadi 16:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sundar reply Thanks for the fixes. It has improved readability. Will read the article fully and comment later. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by qp10qp

Comment. A very interesting article. Many congratulations to the editor for such a thorough piece of work. Most of the information is new to me, and so I cannot judge its accuracy. I am slightly familiar with the wars against the British, and this part did raise a few questions.

  • Battle of Pollilur: it struck me that if this is worth illustrating with a picture, it is worth mentioning in the article.
DK Reply Actually it is meantioned in the "Architecture" section.Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dk Reply I have now indicated Pollilur is near Kanchipuram.Dineshkannambadi 12:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean this: "The west wall of the palace is covered with murals depicting Tipu Sultan's victory over Colonel Baillie's army at Kanchipuram in 1780" ? If so, I feel it is confusing to have the same battle called two different names in one article. Without prior knowledge, one does not associate this with the picture caption: "Mural of Battle of Pollilur in Tipu's summer palace"!qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The war was a victory for Haider Ali, who drove the British up to modern Chennai and dictated peace terms to the most powerful European state of the time. I am not sure that he was dictating peace terms to the British state. At the time, the East India Company, though it was supervised by the government, had its own board of control, negotiated alliances and treaties on its own behalf, and ran its own armies. I don't suppose that makes much difference from an Indian point of view, but it was not coterminous with the British state.
DK Reply What the historians (who made that statement) meant was that the British presidency at Chennai sued for peace and Haider dictated the terms. They use the term "European power", so I will change "state" to "power".Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Most powerful European power" is rather ungainly, though. I don't think the sentence needs the added value at the end; it is better to simply state the facts, I think. I would end the sentence at "peace terms".qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
DK Reply Done. Removed European power.Dineshkannambadi 12:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An alliance against Mysore had been formed by the Marathas, the Nizam of Hyderabad and the British Raj, culminating in the first Anglo-Mysore war in 1767. By the same token, I don't think we can talk about the British Raj at this time. Perhaps it is seen differently in India, but British history books date the Raj much later, from the mid-nineteenth century, as far as I know.
DK Reply Copy edit issue. I have changed British Raj to British.Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tipu's attack on the Kingdom of Travancore, a British feudatory, resulted in the third Anglo-Mysore war. What is meant by "a British feudatory" here? I note that you use the term "feudatory" to describe the relations between Indian states as well, but I am not sure it is a correct term for relations, largely driven by commerce, between the company and Indian states. "Protectorate" might be a better word, since the aim was to protect company trade. Feudalism, at least by that name, was a thing of the past in Europe by this time.
Dk Reply The term in the book is "ally", so I have changed "feudatory" to "ally".Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good solution, I think.qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nizam of Golconda/Nizam of Hyderabad: You use both names, but in my opinion, if you were to use one only, it would be clearer to the reader that they are the same person.
DK Reply Ok. I will make it consistent.Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the modern history of India, Tipu Sultan stands out as an inveterate enemy of the British, an able administrator, an innovator and a patriot to the core. "A patriot to the core" does not strike me as the most sober phrase. Patriot is an awkward word here because it is not clear (to me, anyway) what it means. Patriot of what? Of Mysore? Not of India, surely, because while Tipu was fighting the British, he was also fighting the Nizam. Was the Nizam less a patriot for allying with the British (especially when Tipu was allied with the French)? And Tipu happily attacked other Indian states when it suited him. Perhaps it is true that he is now regarded as an Indian patriot in retrospect, so to speak; but if that is what is meant, perhaps the terms of reference could be tightened up.

qp10qp 00:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dk Reply I think you are correct in saying that he is regarded a patriot in the present context while the Nizam is described as fickle. I will play down the sentence

as Some modern Indian historians consider Tipu Sultan an inveterate enemy of the British, an able administrator, an innovator and a nationalist to the core. Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best historians know that it is anachronistic to refer to nationalism in eighteenth-century India, long before India became a nation and when states were forever changing shape and allies; it is a more modern phenomenon. However, many historians aren't the best, I admit.qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply I have removed "nationalist" based on your arguement. However, the term nationalist could also apply to the "Nation of Mysore" as Tipu may have seen it.Dineshkannambadi 12:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comments by user:Sarvagnya

Strong support and comment - First class work. One of the most important princely states under the British Raj certainly deserved an FA. Thanks DK. The only issues I see at this point are - 1) the prose needs some tweaking in some places.

DK Reply Will work on the prose.Dineshkannambadi 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) the images need to be arranged better if possible. Also this image of Tipu ought to make it to the article somewhere. Tipu and Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar were the greatest kings of Mysore in my estimate, for, under Tipu the kingdom reached its height of military power while under NKrW, the kingdom reached its zenith of all round development. I somehow squeezed in NKrW's image there, but Tipu should also find a place.

DK Reply From my reading, when historians focus on political history, they write extensively about Tipu Sultan. When they write about cultural history, its a not clear who was greater, Krishnaraja Wodeyar III or IV. Both made valuable contributions.Dineshkannambadi 20:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dk Reply Will add that image in place of the Mysore flag. The flag will go in the box for which provision exists.Dineshkannambadi 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply I though there was a place to put it in the box, but dont see any.Dineshkannambadi 20:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3) The map in the infobox should be cropped to show the kingdom more prominently.

Dk Reply I am using the same format as maps in some other FA's. user:Planemad who drew the map is busy with exams right now. So once he is free, I can ask him to just draw the map showing south India.Dineshkannambadi 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4) The flag (and the emblem) should be fitted in the infobox somehow, so we can fit Tipu's image in the history section easily. Sarvagnya 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Will do.Dineshkannambadi 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Brilliant article, though seems trivial in between, but digestable. Indianescence 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support and Comment: Excellent content. Have done some cp-edit myself to make minor prose and style corrections. I have other minor comments:
  1. These two sentences are confusing: The Portuguese patronage called Padraodo was suppressed by the Propaganda of the more hostile European powers, including the English, the French, the Dutch and the Danes. The Propaganda sent out Capuchins, the Discalced Carmelites, the Theatines and the missionaries of the Society of Paris. They may need to be reworded to indicate the correct meaning
DK reply Ok. The Propaganda is what the patronage by other European colonists to missionaries was called. Dineshkannambadi 11:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The public began to enjoy Carnatic music through its broadcast via public address systems set up on the palace grounds. Not sure if this is needed or it needs to be reworded. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dk reply This statement was meant to bring out the fact that carnatic music was no longer for the listening pleasure of the elite only, but the common also.Dineshkannambadi 11:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Excellent article. Comprehensive coverage, ample citations and pictures, subarticles for virtually every section and subsection making it a very strong summary style article. Deserves FA star. - KNM Talk 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Extremely well written and comprehensive. -- Naveen (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No & Oppose Pass & support

  • On the basis that it does not fulfill #1d NPOV. The lead sounds too much like a celebration of subject matter. Learnedo 09:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply If you can tell me where exactly it fails NPOV in the lead, I can try to modify it.Dineshkannambadi 14:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dk Reply I have reduced the usage of adjectives in the Lead section.Dineshkannambadi 14:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Learnedo

Reducing the usage of adjectives would definitely help maintain NPOV, though at times they are appropriate. I will edit what I can later on today and change my vote accordingly. Learnedo 20:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few things :

"Later, during a period of political uncertainty in southern India," Can it be a bit more precise?
DK Done.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Under the leadership of kings Narasaraja" Since the article used 'rule' already, change leadership to rule. Leadership gives positive connotations and is not neutral.
DK done, changed ti "rule".Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"reached the zenith of its military" Why zenith and not simply peak. Sounds like we're in awe and amazement.
DK Done.changed to "peak".Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"time, it challenged the might of the Maratha Empire and even the" Again, NOT NPOV. Far too much suggestions for praising of this kingdom.
DK Done. downplayed it.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much downplay as it is not selling the kingdom. Learnedo 02:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Many battles were waged against the Marathas, the Nizam of Golconda and the rulers of Travancore and Malabar, often resulting in victory and territorial gains."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements

DK done. downplayed it. Just fought wars with them.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"However, their most famous conflicts were the four Anglo-Mysore wars." Source it by attribution.
DK citations exits in history section.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Success in the first two Anglo-Mysore wars was followed by defeat in the third and fourth" Either have it success & failure or victory & defeat, as the opposing terms.
DK Done. changed to "failure".Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"ending in Tipu's death on the battlefield." Is on the battlefield necessary. Makes it sound like the person is a hero or something.
Dk Removed "Tipu's death of Battlefield".Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Kingdom of Mysore was responsible for development of the fine arts" to The kingdom. We already know what the article is on by now.
DK modified.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Its court, which had famous artists and musicians, became a centre of Carnatic music." Reference some famous folks over here.
Dk mentioned famous musicians.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Many Mysore kings were acclaimed writers and composers, and both the kings themselves and the classical artists they patronised have left an indelible mark on the culture of southern India."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#State_the_facts

Dk removed adjective and modified as suggested.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely get rid of an "indelible mark." How about "had a lasting effect on" or "made a significant impact on," or just get rid of it. It's not needed. State the facts. Learnedo 00:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Done. changed as adviced.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support The article looks great, but I have two requests. Could you replace refs 125 and 131? They seem to be self-published sources, which according to policy, are not reliable sources. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dk Reply ok. I will replace those citations at the earliest. I will find book citations from reliable writers for those citations.thanksDineshkannambadi 23:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Very well written article with ample of sources. But the template of Mysore kings in the second section seems to have problems with some browsers. Or is it just my computer? Gnanapiti 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well written and organised article definitely worthy of FA status. Hedgehog Kanna 17:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please ensure use of endash in appropriate places (year ranges). I changed to endash in two instances in the article. Please see if more changes are needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dk reply Ok, will do.Dineshkannambadi 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is now taken care. Thanks, - KNM Talk 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well. it was not taken care of. I changed quite a lot to endashes (in the infoboxes). apparently, no problem any more.
Well, it was indeed taken care of completely, after your initial comment, and before your this latest edit. You changed endashes before making the comment. I hope this clarifies. :) Cheers, - KNM Talk 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, wikilinking of dates, and first time an unit appears. Especially, dates need to be wikilinked.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply This is a topic that has come up on every FAC. Some reviewers want it, others dont want it. Not sure which way to go.Dineshkannambadi 20:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. some likes it. and some dislikes. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) recommends auto-formating (linking of dates). It's always been a problem.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I link it outside the "Mysore Kings infobox"?Dineshkannambadi 00:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Done. I have linked dates and years per your request.Dineshkannambadi 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Page needs work, mostly connected to language issues. I take up only the “religion” section here, since it raises issues beyond just language.
    The formal sectarian affiliation of the ruling family is an important point and definitely requires a reputable citation. Particularly since the belief (IMO accurate) is common that the Wodeyars belong to the Shaivite Lingayat sect.
    • The numerous Vishnu temples built by them are testimony to their adherence to the Vaishnava faith.
    WP:OR. Personally, I would not have this sentence even if I did find one or the other published work saying something to this effect. It makes me wonder whether “predominantly” in the preceding sentence indicates similar wishful extrapolations, based, say, on first names or gifts to temples. We should not infer from SM Krishna’s name that he is or his family is Vaishnava.
    So what? Numerous other temples did, and these are relatively minor ones. WP:UNDUE.
    • The rise of Mysore as a centre of south Indian culture has been traced to this period.
    Erase, meaningless sentence. What period, anyway? 1399-1947?
    • Raja Wodeyar I initiated the celebration of the Dasara festival in Mysore, a proud tradition of the erstwhile Vijayanagara royal family. However, the kings were tolerant to other sects and religious faiths. This is evidenced by the high ranking non-Vaishnavites in their courts...
    For one, the sequence of sentences suggests (unintendedly, I’m sure) that the Vaishnavite Dasara (Sri Rama Jayam) is what was celebrated by the rulers of Mysore. Not so. Also, a small detail: Dasara is a timeless tradition in Mysore, and it used to be presided over by the Vijayanagara viceroy of Srirangapatna before the Wodeyars took charge in the mid 1600s.
    • ...and also the fact that many of the Mysore queens were Jains.
    Is a publication entitled “Bahubali of Jainbadri (Shravanabelagola) and other Jain Shrines of Deccan” (Jain and Jain, 1953) really a reliable source for this? They may have been respectful of the Jain faith, made gifts, been liberal, all of which you say in many places, but did they ever convert to Jainism? And how many is “many”?
    • The contact between South India and Islam goes back to the 7th century when trade between Hindu kingdoms and Islamic caliphates thrived. These Muslim traders settled on the Malabar Coast and married local Hindu women, and their descendants came to be known as Mappillas. By the 14th century, Muslims had become a significant minority in the south, though the advent of Portuguese missionaries checked their growth.
    Erase, since none of these sentences is relevant to Mysore state. However, having some related relevant content, if properly annotated, may not be a bad idea.
    • The spread of Christianity in South India has been traced back to the arrival of the Portuguese on the west coast. It was through the patronage of these devout Roman Catholics that chaplains and missionaries went to various regions to encourage people to join the Christian faith. Some evidence, however, suggests that not all of these conversions were peaceful and that the Portuguese soldiers may also have undertaken coercive methods to achieve their ends. Saint Francis Xavier, perhaps the most respected Christian saint in India, gave a new boost to the growth of Christianity. He traveled from village to village, healing the sick, burying the dead and doing what he could to reduce the miseries of the poor and underprivileged. The institutions established in his name are a testimony to his popularity and achievements.
    Ditto as above. Really, the rambling is getting out of hand. See WP:Summary. Besides, this is factually inaccurate, as the Mar Thoma christians claim a an origin predating the Portuguese presence in India.
    • Lo Cinnami, a Jesuit from Goa, was the founder of the Mysore mission.
    At last, something relevant! Can we have more detail (when, what place exactly, appointed by whom, to what effect...) and maybe a citation? This is the kind of stuff that you should replace the paragraphs mentioned above with.
    • The Portuguese patronage called Padraodo was suppressed by the Propaganda of the more hostile European powers, including the English, the French, the Dutch and the Danes....Tranquebar....Lutheran church....absorbed by the Anglican church....
    What does the first sentence mean?? What were the specific effects on Mysore? And the rest (or the whole) can be entirely omitted. Is the micro-mini nitty-gritty of Christian missions really of importance to a summary article on Mysore, given that the Christian population of Mysore has always been miniscule?
    • Other points:
    1. King Chamaraja Wodeyar IV made a contribution of four villages (Change to “endowment” or “grant”)
    2. They opine that Tipu administered mass conversions of Christians and Hindus...(change wording, drop "administered")
    3. Correct the spelling of “Palyagars” to “Paleygars” or “Polegars”
    4. Create stubs and link to the first instances of all the rulers' names,
    5. Remove the folktale of Naraaraja Wodeyar’s wrestling match in Trichy, per WP:UNDUE and WP:Summary.
    6. Change “Jain royal families” to “Jain noble families.” They were arasus and polegars under the Wodeyar rulers, right?
    7. The map in the lead shows the extent of the kingdom at its peak, c.1784. In historical terms, this lasted for an eye-blink of time. At its rendition in 1881, the state was considerably larger than it had ever been before the time of Tipu. This, after a large portion of the state had been annexed during the Anglo-Mysore wars! IMO the map in the lead should be of the Raj-era princely state, because that was the longest period of stable borders. The present lead map could be moved to the history section.
  • There is a great deal of work that could be done on the rest of the article also. Problems of relevance and due weight exist also in the “society” section and elsewhere. Why is it imperative for us to be informed, in the literature section, that "...the Mysore court (was) adorned by famous writers and composers, many of who were Vaishnava by faith..." Please have the page thoroughly copyedited and vetted for perspective. I would suggest Fowler, for both diligence and perspective. Regards, ImpuMozhi 05:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kingdom_of_Mysore&oldid=1138465250"